Decotiis v. Whittemore
635 F.3d 22
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Decotiis, a speech-language therapist, contracted with CDS-Cumberland to provide services under IDEA, while CDS-Cumberland operated within the Maine system supervised by the state DOE.
- Unified Rule 101 (May 2008) limited ESY services to the school year, creating confusion about eligibility and procedures for ESY.
- CDS-Cumberland adopted a policy that ESY was the exception, not the rule, potentially reducing summer services.
- Decotiis informed parents that CDS-Cumberland may not be in compliance with state/federal law and advised advocacy groups, after learning of inconsistent ESY practices.
- CDS-Cumberland non-renewed Decotiis’s contract in July 2008; she remained under contract with other CDS sites and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The district court dismissed Whittemore (in her individual capacity) on qualified-immunity grounds; the First Circuit vacated as to Hannigan and CDS-Cumberland and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming dismissal as to Whittemore in her individual capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Decotiis spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern | Decotiis spoke as a citizen about ESY compliance. | Speech related to her job duties, not citizen speech. | Plaintiff pleaded citizen speech; district court erred. |
| Whether Garcetti applies to determine if speech is protected | Speech touched public concern and was not clearly within official duties. | Speech may have been pursuant to employment duties. | Garcetti analysis applied; speech plausibly protected. |
| Whether Pickering balancing favors protection of Decotiis's speech | Speech served public interest; retaliation motivated by protected speech. | Speech caused disruption; not sufficiently protected. | Plaintiff plausibly states a constitutional violation under Pickering. |
| Whether Whittemore is entitled to qualified immunity | Rights were clearly established by Garcetti framework. | Contours of the right not clearly established at the time. | Whittemore entitled to qualified immunity in her individual capacity. |
| Whether Hannigan and CDS-Cumberland claims survive given dismissal of Whittemore | Liability for supervision/policy remains if constitutional violation pled. | Dismissal appropriate if Whittemore action bars claim. | Remand required to address Hannigan and CDS-Cumberland claims consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (public employees' speech not protected when made pursuant to official duties)
- Mercado-Berrios v. Cancel-Alegria, 611 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2010) (two-step, context-specific Garcetti inquiry for official duties)
- Foley v. Town of Randolph, 598 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (contextual factors show speech as official communication; on-duty, scene-related, etc.)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1977) (burden on employer to show it would have taken same action absent protected speech)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balance of employee's speech value against governmental efficiency interests)